The expensive soapbox
Published: Sunday, August 23, 2009
Updated: Sunday, August 23, 2009
 "Photo: © 2009 NCSU Student Media")
© 2009 NCSU Student Media
I propose recognition of the "expensive soapbox.” The common saying is anyone with a soapbox should be able to speak on the street, and anyone who wants to speak should be able to. This acknowledges free speech as an unalienable right. Anyone standing on a soapbox on the street has that right, but people are free to walk away; the people speaking are able to keep to themselves; and anyone who wants to follow them can do so.
The question is when and where the line should be drawn for freedom of speech in a college setting. Some speeches and speakers we can easily disqualify -- the preachers in the brickyard or ultra-conservative and ultra-liberal speakers fall into this category.
The recent freedom of speech controversies ask us to consider when a speaker should be invited to the University. In the last two semesters, N.C. State has been at the forefront of the issue with our Free Expression Tunnel.
The nature of the Bible Belt means that preachers who gain permission from the University can speak freely every semester. They will continue to bring this issue to the forefront.
Here’s where the expensive soapbox argument works. It applies when the speech in question costs something as opposed to the free soapbox that costs nothing. There are costs to having speakers at the school and thousands of successful, appropriate candidates compete for them. There are a number of levels: clubs, Philosophy club conference this semester; colleges, CHASS sponsors a speaker; the University as a whole, first lady Michele Obama and President Bill Clinton. All of these people and their lectures have price tags.
Because of the price tags, and the competition between speakers, these situations do not constitute free speech problems. The regulation is based on whether or not the speakers are appropriate for the school. Free speech is already guaranteed by the first amendment, it is not a limited resource.
The dollars people receive to speak are a limited resource -- I hope it was money well spent on President Clinton. There are examples where the money does not and cannot be equivalent to the speeches they purchase.
Speakers can be formally assessed based on how much they cost and how they compare with other possible speakers.
It seems as though there is a lot of mud to walk through to get a good speaker. But the nature of competition means that one spot has to be won among many speakers.
Given a choice between eating dog food and chocolate cake, most people would choose chocolate cake. It seems as though the choice is not a choice at all but rather one option is automatically ruled out. No one would seriously choose dog food.
Finding lecturers parallels this; terrible speakers are like the dog food. The first ethical consideration is how this lecturer competes against other lecturers who could use the spot. If the school had two competing lecturers, it would choose the better one every time. There is no need to entertain terrible speakers. There are plenty of empty parking lots and soap boxes for them to choose from.
No comments:
Post a Comment